1 NRC Regulatory Initiatives National Radiological Emergency Preparedness Conference 2009 April 21, 2009 Bill Dean Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Security

1

NRC Regulatory InitiativesNational Radiological Emergency Preparedness Conference 2009

April 21, 2009

Bill Dean Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Security & Incident Response

Robert KahlerBranch Chief, Inspection & Regulatory Improvements Branch

Randy SullivanSenior Emergency Preparedness Specialist

2

Status of Emergency Preparedness Rulemaking &

Guidance Robert Kahler, Branch Chief

Inspection & Regulatory Improvements BranchDivision of Preparedness & Response

Office of Nuclear Security & Incident ResponseApril 21, 2009

3

Current EP Rulemaking

• 11 EP Rulemaking Issues– Issues Identified in SECY-06-0200– 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.54(q), & 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix E Affected– NRC Bulletin 2005-02 Items Codified

• SECY-09-0007 Submitted in January 2009

• Issuance of Commission SRM

4

Proposed Rule Comments• Proposed Rule Documents

– ADAMS– www.regulations.gov

• Docket: NRC-2008-0122

• 75-Day Comment Period• Multiple Public Meetings

– Different Locations & Venues– Joint Sessions with FEMA– Pursuing Web Conferencing for “Virtual”

Participation Opportunities

5

Associated EP Guidance• New Reg. Guide for Changing Emergency

Plans (10 CFR 50.54(q))• New NUREG/CR for Updating Evacuation

Time Estimates• Interim Staff Guidance for Remaining

Topics• FEMA Providing Offsite Guidance• Guidance Published in Conjunction with

Proposed Rule

EP Rulemaking & Guidance Matrix

# RULEMAKING TOPIC ONSITE GUIDANCE

1 On-Shift Multiple Responsibilities Interim Staff Guidance

2 Emergency Action Levels for Hostile Action Events Reg. Guide 1.101

3 Emergency Response Organization Augmentation at Alternative Facility

Interim Staff Guidance

4 Licensee Coordination with Offsite Response Organizations


5 Protective Actions for Onsite Personnel Interim Staff Guidance

6 Challenging Drills and Exercises Interim Staff Guidance

7 Alert and Notification System Backup Means Interim Staff Guidance

8 Emergency Classification Timeliness Interim Staff Guidance

9 Consolidated Emergency Operations Facility – Performance-Based Approach


10 Evacuation Time Estimate Updating New NUREG/CR

11 Emergency Plan Change Process New Reg. Guide

7

Requests for Input• Inclusion of National Incident Management

System/Incident Command System in EP programs• Shift staffing and augmentation• Expanding to non-power reactor licensees

requirements for:– Detailed analyses demonstrating timely performance of

emergency response functions by on-shift personnel– Capability to assess, classify, and declare an emergency

condition within 15 minutes– Hostile action event emergency action levels

• Effective date• Implementation schedule

8

Contact

Robert Kahler

301-415-7528

[email protected]

9

Revision of NUREG-0654Supp. 3

Randy Sullivan, CHP

April 21, 2009

10

Introduction

• Staff recommended a review of protective action recommendation (PAR) guidance

• Commission directed that the study proceed

• Sandia study began in late 2004

11

PAR Study Objective

• Investigate if the use of alternative protective actions can reduce public dose during severe accidents

12

Alternatives Tested

• Shelter in place for various times – (within current regimen, but limited use)

• Preferred sheltering for various times (in large public buildings, etc.)

• Lateral evacuation (crosswind)

• Staged evacuation (evacuation nearby, initially shelter others)

13

Results

• Revise NUREG-0654, Supplement 3 – Evacuation remains major element – Consider staged evacuation – Shelter in place followed by evacuation is

more protective than standard PAR for large early release at sites with longer evacuation times

14

Focus Groups and Telephone Survey

• People will implement protective actions when asked

• Message affects rate of compliance

• Emergency responders will report for duty

15

Implementation of Study Conclusions

• Draft PAR Logic Diagram

• Gather stakeholder feedback

• Align with FEMA

• Formal review and approval process

• Issue guidance (2010)

16

GeneralEmergency

Declared

Do impediments toevacuation exist (2)

SIP (3) 2 mile radiusand 5 miles downwind

(4) all othersheightened

preparedness (5)

No

Evacuate 2 mile radiusand SIP (3) 5 miles

downwind (4) all othersheightened

preparedness (5)

After 2 mile ETE (7)evacuate 2-5 miles

downwind (4)

Continue assessment(11)

Yes

Large earlyrelease? (1)

No

Impedimentsremoved?

(8)

No

Continueassessment

maintain PAR

Yes

GE conditionsremain? (6)

Yes

No

Confer with OROs,whether to maintain or

expand PAR


No

Yes

SIP 2 mile radius (9),evacuate 2-5 mile

downwind (4) SIP 5-10mile downwind

When safe to do so,evacuate the 2 mile

radius (10)

Is the 2 mile 90%ETE > 3 hours?

No

Yes

Yes

17

GeneralEmergency

Declared




preparedness (5)

No



preparedness (5)


downwind (4)


Yes


No

Impedimentsremoved?

(8)

No

Continueassessment

maintain PAR

Yes


Yes

No


expand PAR


No

Yes




radius (10)


No

Yes

Yes

18

GeneralEmergency

Declared




preparedness (5)

No



preparedness (5)


downwind (4)


Yes


No

Impedimentsremoved?

(8)

No

Continueassessment

maintain PAR

Yes


Yes

No


expand PAR


No

Yes




radius (10)


No

Yes

Yes

19

GeneralEmergency

Declared




preparedness (5)

No



preparedness (5)


downwind (4)


Yes


No

Impedimentsremoved?

(8)

No

Continueassessment

maintain PAR

Yes


Yes

No


expand PAR


No

Yes




radius (10)


No

Yes

Yes

20

GeneralEmergency

Declared




preparedness (5)

No



preparedness (5)


downwind (4)


Yes


No

Impedimentsremoved?

(8)

No

Continueassessment

maintain PAR

Yes


Yes

No


expand PAR


No

Yes




radius (10)


No

Yes

Yes

21

GeneralEmergency

Declared




preparedness (5)

No



preparedness (5)


downwind (4)


Yes


No

Impedimentsremoved?

(8)

No

Continueassessment

maintain PAR

Yes


Yes

No


expand PAR


No

Yes




radius (10)


No

Yes

Yes

22

GeneralEmergency

Declared




preparedness (5)

No



preparedness (5)


downwind (4)


Yes


No

Impedimentsremoved?

(8)

No

Continueassessment

maintain PAR

Yes


Yes

No


expand PAR


No

Yes




radius (10)


No

Yes

Yes

23

Questions?

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6953/

Randy Sullivan301-415-1123

[email protected]